ABSC Literature Review

Santa-Eulalia, Luis Antonio; Halladjian, Georgina; D'Amours, Sophie; Frayret,
Jean-Marc
Article
Integrated methodological frameworks for modelling
agent-based advanced supply chain planning
systems: A systematic literature review
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (JIEM)
Provided in Cooperation with:

The School of Industrial, Aerospace and Audiovisual Engineering of Terrassa (ESEIAAT),
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)
Suggested Citation: Santa-Eulalia, Luis Antonio; Halladjian, Georgina; D'Amours, Sophie;

Frayret, Jean-Marc (2011) : Integrated methodological frameworks for modelling agent-based
advanced supply chain planning systems: A systematic literature review, Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management (JIEM), ISSN 2013-0953, OmniaScience, Barcelona, Vol. 4, Iss.
4, pp. 624-668,
https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.326
This Version is available at:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/188472
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use:
Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your
Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes.
Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial
Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them
machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise
use the documents in public.
Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen
(insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open
gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you
genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated
licence.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
JIEM, 2011 – 4(4):624-668 – Online ISSN: 2013-0953 – Print ISSN: 2013-8423
http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.326
Integrated methodological frameworks for modeling agent-

based advanced supply chain planning systems: A systematic
literature review
Luis Antonio Santa-Eulalia1, Georgina Halladjian1, Sophie D’Amours2, Jean-Marc Frayret3

1
Téluq - Université du Québec à Montréal, 2Université Laval, 3École Polytechnique de Montréal
(CANADA)
leulalia@teluq.uqam.ca; halladjian.georgina@yahoo.ca; Sophie.Damours@gmc.ulaval.ca; Jean-
Marc.Frayret@polymtl.ca
Received January 2011

Accepted September 2011
Abstract:
Purpose: The objective of this paper is to provide a systematic literature review of

recent developments in methodological frameworks for the modelling and
simulation of agent-based advanced supply chain planning systems.
Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review is provided to

identify, select and make an analysis and a critical summary of all suitable studies in
the area. It is organized into two blocks: the first one covers agent-based supply
chain planning systems in general terms, while the second one specializes the
previous search to identify those works explicitly containing methodological
aspects.
Findings: Among sixty suitable manuscripts identified in the primary literature

search, only seven explicitly considered the methodological aspects. In addition, we
noted that, in general, the notion of advanced supply chain planning is not
considered unambiguously, that the social and individual aspects of the agent
society are not taken into account in a clear manner in several studies and that a
significant part of the works are of a theoretical nature, with few real-scale
- 624 -
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management - http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.326
industrial applications. An integrated framework covering all phases of the

modelling and simulation process is still lacking in the literature visited.
Research limitations/implications: The main research limitations are related to

the period covered (last four years), the selected scientific databases, the selected
language (i.e. English) and the use of only one assessment framework for the
descriptive evaluation part.
Practical implications: The identification of recent works in the domain and

discussion concerning their limitations can help pave the way for new and
innovative researches towards a complete methodological framework for agent-
based advanced supply chain planning systems.
Originality/value: As there are no recent state-of-the-art reviews in the domain

of methodological frameworks for agent-based supply chain planning, this paper
contributes to systematizing and consolidating what has been done in recent years
and uncovers interesting research gaps for future studies in this emerging field.
Keywords: supply chain management, advanced supply chain planning systems, agent-
based modelling and simulation, methodological frameworks
1 Introduction
The Supply Chain Management (SCM) paradigm is widely discussed today in

virtually all industry sectors. A supply chain (SC) is a network of autonomous or
semi-autonomous companies responsible for raw materials extraction,
transformation into intermediary and finished products, as well as distribution and
delivery to final consumers (Lee & Billington, 1993). These systems encompass
several characteristics that render them quite intricate, according to the
complexity’s theory.
In order to cope with this complexity, modelling and simulation techniques are
frequently used to understand these systems and to propose the best way to
exploit them. For example, scientists and practitioners model and simulate supply
chains to deal with problems related to: dynamic scheduling and shop floor job
assignment, planning and scheduling integration problems, supply chain
coordination problems, supply chain dynamics problems (Lee & Kim, 2008),
- 625 -
information sharing, supply chain control structures, intelligent behaviour of supply

chain members, evaluation of supply chain push and pull strategies, autonomy of
supply chain partners and problem-solving algorithms and methods, among several
other possibilities described in the literature.
In an attempt to model and simulate these problems, many techniques have

emerged since the 1950’s. Santa-Eulalia, D’Amours, Frayret and Azevedo (2009a)
reviewed the state of the art of modelling and simulation techniques for capturing
the complexity of supply chain systems. In this work, fourteen different modelling
and simulation approaches were identified and organized into a novel taxonomy.
One of the most pre-eminent categories identified is called multi-agent systems.
Derived from Artificial Intelligence, this technique provides an innovative way to
model and treat supply chain management problems.
To extend this previous study, the objective of this paper is to review the literature
related to agent-based systems for SCM. To do so, a new taxonomy classifying
different methodological frameworks for modelling SCM problems was created. This
taxonomy identifies that several dissimilar methods have been employed to
represent agents in an SC since the 1990’s, as will be explained in the next
subsection. The present work focuses on a specific category of this taxonomy which
models “agent-based systems” to perform “advanced SC planning”. These agent-
based systems are defined here as d-APS (distributed Advanced Planning and
Scheduling systems), as proposed by Santa-Eulalia, Frayret and D’Amours (2008).
These systems represent an emergent domain, arising from the convergence of two
fields of research. The first field deals with APS systems, proposing a centralized
and hierarchical perspective of supply chain planning, generally treating a single
company’s supply chain operations planning system. The second field concerns
agent-based manufacturing technology, which entails the development of
distributed software systems to support the management of production and
distribution systems. APS systems employing agent technology (hereafter d-APS)
propose mechanisms that overcome some of the limitations of traditional APS
systems mainly related to: i) the inability to create sophisticated simulation
scenarios (i.e. APS only proposes what-if analysis of part of the SC); and ii) the
limitation in modelling distributed contexts to capture important business
phenomena like negotiation and cooperation (Santa-Eulalia et al., 2008).
In the domain of d-APS systems there is an important research gap (Govindu &
Chinnam, 2010; Santa-Eulalia, Aït-Kadi, D’Amours, Frayret & Lemieux, 2011;
Santa-Eulalia, 2009), which limits researchers in fully taking advantage of
- 626 -
simulations: in this area, simulations are normally developed and implemented

directly from pre-stated requirements with little explicit focus on system analysis,
specification, design and implementation in an integrated manner. Several works
exist to specify and design agent-based simulation for SCM, but few approaches
exist that integrate the entire development process. Moreover, the methodological
aspects are not usually exploited explicitly. This results in a typical problem in
agent-based systems, i.e. the engineering divergence phenomenon (Michel,
Gouaïch & Ferber, 2003), where the conceptual model is incomplete or inadequate
in different ways, consequently yielding outputs that are different from the
stakeholder’s real requirements for simulation.
In this sense, this paper aims to organize and identify the main recent advances in
the domain of methodological frameworks. This will contribute to systematize and
consolidate what has been done in recent years and also uncover possible
interesting research gaps for future studies in this emerging field. In order to do so,
a systematic approach is employed so as to guarantee a rigorous, transparent and
reproducible procedure aiming to identify, select and make an analysis and a critical
summary of all suitable studies dealing with this promising research area.
This paper is organized as follows. First, Section 2 presents two taxonomies

organizing the modelling and simulation techniques for SC, with special attention
given to agent-based methodologies. Section 3 puts forward the research
methodology employed. Section 4 presents the main results of this study and
finally, Section 5 outlines some discussions and final remarks.
2 Supply Chain Modelling and Simulation
“Modelling and simulation is the use of models, including emulators, prototypes,

simulators, and stimulators, either statically or over time, to develop data as a
basis for making managerial or technical decisions. The terms “modelling” and
“simulation” are often used interchangeably” (DoD, 1998).
Many efforts for modelling and simulating SC systems have been made since the
1950’s. Santa-Eulalia et al. (2009a) proposed a taxonomy to organize the literature
review on modelling and simulation techniques for supply chains. It represents how
we understand the domain and it is divided as follows:
 SC Simulation: represents essentially descriptive modelling techniques, in

which the main objective is to create models for describing the system
itself. Modellers develop these kinds of models to understand the modelled
- 627 -
system and/or to compare the performance of different systems. Several

techniques were surveyed, including System Dynamics (Kim & Oh, 2005),
Monte Carlo Simulation (Biwer, Griffith & Cooney, 2005), Discrete-Event
Simulation (Van Der Vorst, Tromp, & Van der Zee, 2005), Combined
Discrete-Continuous techniques (Lee & Liu, 2002) and Supply Chain Games
(Van Horne & Marier, 2005).
 SC Optimization: refers to normative models, i.e. models that suggest how

the system should or ought to be. Modellers develop these kinds of models
mainly to discover the ideal situation concerning the modelled system
(optimal behaviours). Examples of the studied techniques include Multi-
Echelon Inventory Systems (Ng & Piplani, 2003), Classic SC Optimization
(Ouhimmou, D’Amours, Beauregard, Aït-Kadi & Chauhand, 2008), and
Statistical Analysis-Based and Non-Parametric Optimization (Chen, Yang &
Yen, 2007). There is also a set of Statistical Analysis-Based techniques,
which are divided into Combined Optimization – Monte Carlo (Beaudoin,
Lebel & Frayret, 2007), Business Games (Moyaux, Chaib-draa, & D’Amours,
2007), Stochastic Programming-based (Kazemi, Aït-Kadi & Nourelfath,
2010) and Fuzzy Logic-Based techniques (Ganga, 2010).
 Basic Hybrid Approaches: it is interesting to note that in between Simulation

techniques and Optimization approaches, there is a basic hybrid approach
called Simulation Optimization. This technique combines characteristics of
both SC Simulation (i.e. descriptive models) and SC Optimization (i.e.
normative models), and it is being widely discussed in the literature.
 Artificial Intelligence: descriptive and/or normative models, used to create

models that try to mimic systems including human behaviour for supply
chain management. Modellers employ these models to describe the system
(most of the applications available in the literature), or for optimizing it, or
both (like the system proposed by Frayret, D’Amours, Rousseau, Harvey &
Gaudreault, 2007). This approach is explained in detail in the next sub-
section.
In addition, it is important to mention that there are other techniques in the

literature, but they are not very common in the surveyed works. Some examples
are spreadsheet simulations (Kleijnen, 2005; Chwif, Barretto & Saliby, 2002),
mental simulations (Escalas, 2004; Penker & Wytrzens, 2005), case base reasoning
(Kwon, Im & Lee, 2005), and traditional Queuing models (Amouzegar &
- 628 -
Moshirvaziri, 2006). For more details about these techniques, the reader is referred
to Santa-Eulalia et al. (2009a).
2.1 Multi-Agent Systems for Supply Chain Planning
From the artificial intelligence field a set of techniques fall under the umbrella of
multi-agent-based systems. They model systems that are composed of distributed
interacting intelligent entities, called agents, which solve problems that are difficult
or simply impractical for a monolithic model to solve. In this context, diverse
agents work together and interact with one another to accomplish some tasks. All
of the agents use their abilities and knowledge to strengthen the problem-solving
capacity of the whole planning system. Due to this distinctiveness, such a system
is of great utility in helping solve problems based on multiple methods and that
have multiple perspectives (Jarras & Chaib-draa, 2002).
Multi-agent systems employ mechanisms from distributed artificial intelligence,

distributed computing, social network theory, cognitive science, and operational
research (Tweedale, 2007; Samuelson, 2005). Examples of these mechanisms
include autonomy, pro-activeness and social ability, for example. The social
capability is quite interesting in this domain; examples of these abilities include
cooperation, coordination and negotiation.
In this context, software agents in SCM generally embed one or more techniques
from SC Optimization and SC Simulation to support operations planning or
simulation. However, agents usually go further by also embedding negotiation
protocols (Forget, D'Amours, Frayret & Gaudreault, 2008; Dudek & Stadtler, 2005)
or learning algorithms (Carvalho & Custodio, 2005; Emerson & Piramuthu, 2004) to
address other issues, such as coordination in distributed and complex contexts.
Agent-based approaches for SCM are not new. Since the early 1990’s, several
developments have targeted the context of distributed decision-making across the
supply chain using agent technology. For example, the pioneering work of Fox,
Barbuceanu, Gani and Beck (1993), followed by others like Parunak (1998),
Swaminathan, Smith and Sadeh (1998), Strader, Lin Tan and Shaw (1998) and
Montreuil, Frayret and D’Amours (2000), just to mention a few, have led to
significant advances in the area. Nevertheless, the notion of APS systems is
generally not treated explicitly. In other words, these works do not clearly address
the integration of advanced planning functions with the notion of agents. Basically,
APS systems address various functions of supply chain management, including
procurement, production, distribution and sales, at the strategic, tactical and
- 629 -
operational planning levels (Frayret et al., 2007; Stadtler, 2005). These systems
stand for a quantitative model-driven perspective on the use of IT in supporting
SCM to exploit advanced analysis and supply chain optimization methods.
More recently, agents embedding APS tools and procedures appear to consider
these issues more explicitly (Santa-Eulalia et al., 2008). Defined here as d-APS,
these systems model the supply chain as a set of semi-autonomous and
collaborative entities acting together to coordinate their decentralized plans. The
use of agent technology extends traditional APS in order to tackle negotiation and
complex coordination issues. In this sense, d-APS systems may provide more
modelling functionalities, hence permitting capture of a higher level of complexity in
comparison with classic APS systems.
Another interesting advantage of d-APS systems is related to simulation. Agents

are largely used for simulation since they naturally model the simultaneous
operations of multiple agents in an attempt to re-create and predict the actions of
complex phenomena. Thus, simulating actions and interactions of autonomous
individuals in a supply chain and with the possibility of assessing their effects on
the system as a whole is one interesting property of this system.
To conceive, implement and use d-APS systems, a set of modelling frameworks has
been proposed in the literature, as discussed in the next sub-section.
2.2 Modelling Frameworks for Agent-Based Advanced Supply Chain

Planning
A set of frameworks or methodological approaches can be employed for modelling

a simulation environment, varying from traditional development approaches to
specific agent-oriented supply chain planning approaches. Figure 1 organizes our
literature review of the main approaches that could be useful for modelling a d-APS
system. This tree-classification schema adapts and extends the categorization of
Bussmann, Jennings and Wooldridge (2004).
- 630 -
Figure 1. Modelling approaches for agent-based advanced supply chain planning
The following categories are proposed:
 Non Agent-oriented Approaches: refers to modelling paradigms that can be

used to model diverse systems, including agent-based systems, without
explicitly considering agents’ societies. Examples of this category include
Generic Approaches such as Data-oriented Approaches (e.g. Jackson, 1975
apud Bussmann et al., 2004), Structural Approaches (e.g. DeMarco, 1978
apud Bussmann et al., 2004) and Object-oriented Approach (e.g. Chatfield,
Harrison & Hayya, 2006). A set of Manufacturing-oriented approaches also
exists, with modelling frameworks that vary from modelling formalisms
(e.g. SADT/IDEF – Structured Analysis and Design Technique/Integrated
Computer Aided Manufacturing Definition – or Petri-Nets approaches) to
complete modelling architectures (Vernadat, 1996) (e.g., CIMOSA –
Computer Integrated Manufacturing Open System Architecture) derived
from the field of Enterprise Integration.
 Agent-oriented Approaches: Conventional methodologies have proven

unsuitable for engineering agent-based systems (Karageorgos &
Mehandjiev, 2004; Monostori, Vancza & Kumara, 2006). In this sense,
Agent-oriented Approaches (Brugali & Sycara, 2000) explicitly take into
consideration the notion of agent. At this level, two generic classes exist:
General Purpose for Agents [e.g. Tropos (Giorgini, Kolp, Mylopoulos &
Pistore, 2003), Prometheus (Padgham & Winikoff, 2002), MaSE (Wood &
- 631 -
DeLoach, 2000), Gaia (Wooldridge, Jennings & Kinny, 2000), MAS-

CoMoMAS (Iglesias, González & Velasco, 1998)], which were developed for
creating agent-based systems by explicitly incorporating concepts such as
autonomy, reactivity, proactivity, and sociability; and Agent-oriented
Manufacturing, which provides more explicit guidelines for the identification
of agents in production control, but not necessarily dedicated to supply
chain problems (e.g. Nishioka, 2004; Bussmann et al., 2004; Parunak,
Baker & Clark, 2001). Although these kinds of approaches are interesting
for creating simulation models for our proposed domain, they are not
dedicated to the SCM context.
Derived from the Agent-oriented Approaches, a set of techniques appears to

explicitly create agents for SCM activities. Named Agent-oriented SCM approaches,
this category can be divided into:
 Agents for SCM: Agents are dedicated to supply chain management but are
not specialized in the advanced planning domain. Examples of relevant
projects in this domain are Labarthe, Espinasse, Ferrarini and Montreuil
(2007), Chatfield, Hayya and Harrison (2007), Van der Zee and Van der
Vorst (2005), Cavalieri, Cesarotti and Introna (2003), MaMA-S (Galland,
Grimaud, Beaune & Campagne, 2003; Galland, 2001), NetMAN (Montreuil et
al., 2000), ISCM (Fox, Barbuceanu & Teigen, 2000; Fox et al., 1993), MCRA
(Ulieru, Norrie, Kremer & Shen, 2000; Wu, Cobzaru, Ulieru & Norrie, 2000),
CASA/ICAS (Shen & Norrie, 1999), DASCh (Parunak, 1998; Parunak &
VanderBok, 1998), Strader et al. (1998) and MAIS-Swarm (Lin, Tan &
Shaw, 1998). A detailed and recent comparative discussion about agent-
based systems for supply chain management can be found in Monteiro et al.
(2008).
 Agents for Advanced SC Planning: derived from Agent-oriented SCM

approaches, they explicitly mention the use of optimization procedures or
finite capacity planning models when performing supply chain planning. The
following projects can be classified as being examples of this category:
Santa-Eulalia, D’Amours and Frayret (2010), Egri and Vancza (2005), SNS
(Baumgaertel & John, 2003), Lendermann, Gan and McGinnis (2001),
Gjerdrum, Shah and Papageorgiou (2001), MASCOT (Sadeh, Hildum,
Kjenstad & Tseng, 1999), ANTS (Sauter, Parunak & Goic, 1999) and
Swaminathan et al. (1998).
- 632 -
This work focuses on the last category of the proposed taxonomy. Special attention
is given to the methodological aspects of these frameworks, as explained in the
next subsection.
2.3 Methodological Aspects of the Modelling Frameworks
One important element of these modelling frameworks refers to the methodological

aspect. In the software engineering domain, it is known that methodological
aspects are quite important, but they are rarely taken into consideration in a clear
way in the studied area.
These methodological aspects include procedures and steps for developing a

system. For example, a traditional way of developing a system from a software
engineering point of view is called the waterfall approach (Pfleeger & Atlee, 2006),
where a set of stages are depicted as cascading from one to another. These stages
are analysis, specification, design, implementation, integration and maintenance.
Derived from software engineering, specific approaches for agent-based software
engineering have appeared more recently (Dam & Winikoff, 2004). For example,
MaSE (Wood & DeLoach, 2000) which was originally inspired from object-oriented
approaches now proposes a complete lifecycle methodology, consisting of seven
iterative steps, divided into the initial system analysis and the design. An example
of a recent work employing an “Agents for SCM” approach with methodological
concern is Govindu and Chinnam (2010). It proposes a method for the analysis and
design of multi-agent supply chain systems by integrating the Gaia methodology
and the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model. Specific works dealing
with the methodological aspects will be discussed in Section 4.
Now it is possible to position the present work in relation to the concerned

literature. This paper focuses on new developments in the “Agents for Advanced SC
Planning” area, with major attention to methodological aspects. As will be discussed
later, this area is emerging fast and several interesting research gaps still exist.
Before presenting the main results in Section 4, the next subsection summarizes
the research methodology employed in this work.
3 Methodology
This section presents the general organization of a systematic review of the domain
of “methodological frameworks for modelling d-APS systems”. A systematic review
is a review following a rigorous, transparent and reproducible procedure aiming to
- 633 -
identify, select and make an analysis and a critical summary of all suitable studies
that deal with a clearly defined question (Becheikh, 2005). Its origin was in medical
science, but it can be adapted to different domains. For example, it has recently
been used in software engineering and management science.
Based on Becheikh (2005) and Kitchenham et al. (2009), the following phases were
defined for the present work:
 Problem formulation: this study consists of a systematic literature review

concerning scientific papers and technical reports published between 2007
and 2010 on the selected topic, i.e. on methodological frameworks for
agent-based advanced supply chain systems. The last four years were
covered to identify only recent advances in the field, as a previous literature
review on the domain was provided by Santa-Eulalia (2009) covering the
period from 1993 to 2007. The main research questions addressed by the
present study are:
Q1: How many works related to Agent-based Supply Chain Planning

systems and their methodological aspects have there been in the past four
years?
Q2: What research topics do they address (e.g. planning, scheduling,

control, supply, distribution, etc.)?
Q3: How many papers explicitly employ methodological aspects (see

subsection 2.3) in their work?
Q4: Do the frameworks explicitly address the APS functions and modules?
Q5: Are social and individual aspects of their agents explicitly considered?
Q6: What are identified as the main limitations of these studies?
Q7: What are the required research advances in the domain?
Q8: Which methodological aspects are covered and which are not in the
literature?
 Search strategy: the search was performed in digital works only and in the
English-speaking literature. The inclusion criteria comprised i) scientific
peer-reviewed articles, published in a peer-reviewed journal or conference
or ii) technical reports, from well-established research groups, companies or
- 634 -
professional societies. The databases employed were Academic Search

Premier, Business Source Premier, Google Scholar, ABI-Inform, Proquest
and SCOPUS. The final result of this stage was a list of potential articles that
had to be analyzed.
 Selection and evaluation of the articles: Figure 2 schematizes this process.

The primary literature search (step 1) yielded 60 papers. Of these, 26 were
excluded since they did not focus on agent-based systems for advanced SC
planning (d-APS, as defined previously), and one was eliminated because
the reference was found, but not the full paper. A search from the reference
lists of relevant studies led to eight additional studies, which were included
in the review process in step 2. In addition, two references already known
by the authors. But not spotted by the primary search, were included
manually. From the 34 publications that reached step 2, 27 were eliminated
because they did not present specific methodologies for modelling d-APS
systems, and seven were further evaluated in step 3. Step 2 produced a
comparative table of all agent-based systems for SC planning and step 3
produced a specialized table on modelling frameworks for d-APS systems.
 Finalization: information extraction and organization, as well as findings

statement, implications, and recommendations (also for steps 2 and 3).
Figure 2. Papers search process
It is important to explain the difference between step 2 and step 3. First, papers
are compared in step 2 (d-APS systems) using a general description of each work.
On the other hand, a specific descriptive evaluation is performed at step 3
(Frameworks for d-APS Systems) as this work is primarily concerned with the
methodological aspects of the papers.
- 635 -
Diverse approaches from different disciplines exist for evaluating frameworks of

software engineering methodologies. Together with the evaluation of general
aspects, the Karageorgos and Mehandjiev (2004) approach was employed, inducing
a descriptive evaluation method for the specific aspects of agent-based
methodologies. This method includes arguing for or against certain characteristics
of the evaluated framework without actually applying it, which is useful for
discovering some weaknesses in the method, e.g. when desirable features are not
supported. It comprises four different conceptually linked views: concepts, models,
processes and pragmatics. The framework is summarized in Table 1.
View Aspect
Concept definition: refers to the restrictive premise concerning the agent-based
architecture and type/class of agents that can be produced using the
methodology. Methodologies can be classified as being open (no consideration for
Concepts: a particular agent architecture), bounded (consideration for specific architectures,
concentrates such as BDI – beliefs, desires and intentions) or limited (highly bounded). It is
on which preferable for a method to be open.
modelling Design in scope: considers whether a methodology includes steps and guidelines
concepts are for the engineering lifecycle. It can be true or false.
used. Heuristics support: considers whether the methodology provides a formal
support for applying heuristics guidelines and tips for engineering a system. This
formal support can be, in extreme cases, used to provide automation of the
engineering process. It can be true or false.
Models: Organization settings: concerns whether organization settings (e.g. agents’

denotes the roles) are explicitly considered as design constructs. Can be true or false.
models used Collective behaviour: considers whether the approach includes first-class
to represent modelling constructs to explicitly represent collective agent behaviour or not. Can
different be true or false.
parts of the Non-functional aspect: regards whether non-functional aspects are explicitly
system. considered or not. Can be true or false.
Design perspective: refers to the perspective from which the methodology is
Processes: used. Can be top-down, bottom-up, or both.
concentrates Support for reuse: considers whether the methodology supports the use of
on steps that previous knowledge. It can be, for example, guidelines for creating, storing and
are executed reusing knowledge. Can be true or false.
to construct Design automation: concerns whether there are formal underpinnings enabling
the model. automation to a certain extent, and which steps could be carried out by a software
tool. Can be true or false.
Generality: evaluates whether the methodology is based on restrictive premises
Pragmatics: concerning the environment and the application domain. Can be characterized as
evaluates high (a generic method), medium (there are considerable restrictions, but the
how practical methodology is still wide) or low (applied for specific domains). High generality
the method results in lower design complexity since it is easier to apply it to diverse domains.
is for Abstractability: considers whether there is support to enable work at different
engineering levels of abstraction, which is considered by the authors as one of the main
real-world factors affecting design complexity. Can be true or false.
agent Tool support: concerns whether the approach provides tools supporting the
systems. realization of the method, e.g. agent-based toolkits, or CASE tools. Can be true or
false.
Table 1. Summarizing the Karageorgos and Mehandjiev’s (2004) framework
The next section presents the main results of the systematic research.
- 636 -
4 Results
According to the research objectives stated in Section 1 and the research strategy
defined in the last section, the research results are organized in two blocks. First, a
general search (step 2) was performed covering works dealing with supply chain
planning using agent-based approaches, i.e. the last category of the taxonomy
described in subsection 2.2. Afterwards, in the second block the previous search
was specialized in order to identify those works explicitly containing methodological
aspects for modelling agent-based systems (step 3). These two research blocks are
explained in the next two subsections.
4.1 Agent-Based Supply Chain Planning
34 papers dealing with d-APS systems were selected for a general comparative
study. In order to evaluate these manuscripts, some criteria were defined,
according to the research questions listed in Section 3.
First of all, the papers studied were classified depending on the supply chain
problem treated. Diverse problems were studied, ranging from SC planning,
scheduling, collaboration to lot-sizing.
The second criterion indicated whether the work was applied or not. Papers can be
theoretical (T), applied (A), or both (TA). Applied papers employ theoretical
developments in real cases by providing proof-of-concepts cases, for example. To
complement this discussion, the industry sector mentioned in each applied work
was also surveyed. For our concerns, it is important to know whether these new
advances are reaching the industry or if they are mostly of a laboratorial nature.
Next, it was identified whether specific implementation toolkits that enable

individuals to develop agent-based applications, such as NetLogo, Swarm, Repast,
AnyLogic, Maillorca, JADE and others, were employed. This helped to identify if
modelling toolkits were associated to any methodological development.
Another important criterion employed refers to the methodological aspects of the

frameworks. As the main objective of this work is to treat this aspect, it was
verified whether they were explicitly considered. Papers are identified as “Yes”
when they put forward the methodological aspects (in this case, the kind of
contribution they provide is indicated), as “Some” when only a few elements are
considered, or “NI” (i.e. not identified) when it was not possible to detect this
criterion for the studied work.
- 637 -
The notion of APS being clearly treated in the paper was also verified, such as when
the authors noticeably identify a set of modules/applications/functionalities/agents
for planning and scheduling supply chains. These elements can be at different
decision levels (strategic, tactical, operational, control), for different parts of the
supply chain (procurement, production, distribution, sales), from the source of raw
material to final consumption and return (Stadtler, 2005). Again, the notation
“Yes”, “Some” and “NI” was employed. This allowed us to identify whether a
complete analysis of APS systems was conducted, or if the planning and scheduling
approaches were treated partially for specific/dedicated problems.
Finally, two additional criteria related to agents’ society were surveyed. The first
one refers to social aspects, which are associated with how the society is organized
(for example, using autonomous, federated, or hierarchical societies – Shen, Norrie
& Barthès, 2001) and what the agent’s relationships are. Also, social aspects can be
related to social protocols, i.e. a set of rules governing connections between
agents, defining syntactic, semantics and approaches for synchronizing
interactions. The second agent-based criterion refers to individual aspects of the
society. They stand for different individual roles that agents can play within the
society, such as planning and scheduling, controlling, learning, knowledge
management, interfacing, and so forth. Sometimes individual aspects comprise
internal agent architectures. The objective in analyzing social and individual aspects
is to identify if the agent paradigm is really employed, or if it is employed arbitrarily
or partially. Again, the notation “Yes”, “Some” and “NI” was used.
The next four tables (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5) summarize the main
findings of this first research bloc according to a chronological sequence.
Authors Andreev et al. (2007)

Approach/Project Adaptive Planning Toolset
Contribution An architecture for performing an adaptive SC planning
SC Problem SC Planning
Theoretical or Applied TA
Airport logistics, factory planning, laundry scheduling and
Application Sector
pharmaceutical logistics
Specific Implementation Toolkit NI
Methodological approach NI
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization NI
Individual Agent Organization NI
Authors Andrews, Benisch, Sardinha & Sadeh (2007)
Approach/Project NI
Inspection of games from one bracket of the 2006 TAC (Trade Agent
Contribution Competition) semi-finals in order to isolate behavioural features that
distinguished top performing agents in this bracket
SC Planning (requests to suppliers, offersto customers, and a production
SC Problem
plan)
Theoretical or Applied T
Application Sector NI
APS Modules NI
- 638 -

Authors Chen & Wei (2007)
Approach/Project SCMAS (Supply Chain Multi-agent Systems)
A multi-agent architecture dedicated to negotiation and to production
Contribution
planning and dynamic scheduling
SC Problem SC Scheduling; Negotiation
Application Sector Computers industry
Specific Implementation Toolkit Yes (JADE)
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (a negotiation approach is proposed)
Individual Agent Organization Some (agents have defined individual roles)
Authors Feng, Helaakoski, Jurrens & Kipinä (2007)
Approach/Project SteelNet
A coalition framework for business and manufacturing networks
comprising an ontological engineering environment and a multi-agent
Contribution
architecture. The d-APS is just part of a larger architecture, including
other elements such as CAPP and CAM, for example
SC Problem Manufacturing and SC Integration
Application Sector Steel products
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (some interaction mechanisms are studied)
Individual Agent Organization Some (an internal agent architecture is proposed)
Authors Frayret et al. (2007)
Approach/Project The experimentation planning platform
A generic software architecture for development of an experimentation
Contribution environment to design and test distributed advanced planning and
scheduling systems
SC Problem SC planning
Application Sector Forest products industry
Specific Implementation Toolkit No (C# - Microsoft.NET - and with ILOG CPLEX and ILOG SOLVER)
APS Modules Yes (agents are specialized in different APS planning areas)
Social Agent Organization Some (some agents interactions protocols are identified)
Individual Agent Organization Some (agents planning capabilities)
Authors Ivanov, Kaeschel & Sokolov (2007a)
Approach/Project Decentralised Integrated Modelling Approach (DIMA)
Multi-disciplinary approach to model flexible application of various
Contribution modelling frameworks (analytical, simulation and heuristics) as well as
their combinations in the context of agile production networks
SC Problem SC Integration - named collaborative and agile networks
Some (some methodological aspects are considered, as the definition of
Methodological approach
conceptual models, mathematical models and simulation tools)
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Yes (some general schema of agents interactions)
Individual Agent Organization Yes (some functional agent models for describing active elements)
Authors Ivanov, Arkhipov & Sokolov (2007b)
Approach/Project NI
It elaborates principles for creating complex quantitative models for SC
Contribution and Virtual Enterprises using concepts from control theory, system
theory, operations research and distributed artificial intelligence
SC Problem SC Planning and Control
Specific Implementation Toolkit No (partially implemented using C++)
Some (some methodological aspects are considered, as the definition of
conceptual models, mathematical models and simulation tools)
APS Modules NI
Individual Agent Organization Some (meta-models for SC planning and control)
Authors Jankowska, Kurbel & Schreber (2007)
Mobile Agent-based SCEM System (MASS) SCEM stands for Supply
Approach/Project
Chain Event Management
An architecture for a mobile SC event management system based on
Contribution mobile agents, Auto-ID technologies and mobile computing for linking
SC planning and SC execution
SC Problem SC Planning and Execution (SC Event Management)
Application Sector Bicycle Industry, but no details are provided
- 639 -
APS Modules NI
Authors Labarthe et al. (2007)
Approach/Project NI
An agent-based methodological framework for modelling and simulation
Contribution
of SC
SC Problem General problems related to SCM
Application Sector Golf club industry
Specific Implementation Toolkit Yes (AnyLogic and Majorca)
Methodological approach Yes (the proposed framework is of methodological nature)
APS Modules NI
Yes (a specific interaction schema is proposed - structural and dynamic
Social Agent Organization
model)
Individual Agent Organization Yes (agent roles - cognitive and reactive - are explicitly defined)
Authors Lee & Kumara (2007)
Approach/Project NI
A decentralized coordination approach for dynamic lot-sizing in
Contribution
distribution networks
SC Problem Coordination, information sharing and lot-sizing in distribution networks
Specific Implementation Toolkit No (they used a Discrete-Event Simulator - not identified - and LINDO)
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (coordination mechanisms based on auctions/bidding strategies)
Individual Agent Organization Some (a lot sizing approach)
Authors Monteiro, Roy & Anciaux (2007)
Approach/Project NI
An heterarchical architecture for coordinating decisions in a multi-site
Contribution
environment
SC Problem Coordination, SC planning, Negotiation
Application Sector Bronze tap production system
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (cooperative negotiation models)
Individual Agent Organization Some (a Planner Agent and a Negotiator Agent)
Authors Orcun et al. (2007)
Approach/Project SCOPE (Supply chain optimization and protocol environment)
A rapid-prototyping environment for simulating SC planning scenarios
Contribution
employing APS technology
SC Problem SC planning, collaboration
Application Sector Consumer packaged goods industry
No (they employed Excel with Visual Basic and Crystal Ball and they also
Specific Implementation Toolkit
employed ILOG CPLEX)
APS Modules Yes (Agents are specialized in different APS planning areas)
Individual Agent Organization Some (different planning approaches for each agent)
Authors Shin (2007)
Approach/Project Collaborative coordination of distributed production planning (DPP)
Collaborative coordination mechanism/heuristics based on information
Contribution
sharing and on a coordinator/mediator for a distributed system
SC Problem Coordination, production planning
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (for coordination and collaboration only)
Individual Agent Organization Some (production planning model)
Authors Venkatadri & Kiralp (2007)
Approach/Project DSOPP (Distributed Simulation Order Promising Platform)
An agent-based architecture for order promising in a distributed network
Contribution
employing optimization technology
SC Problem Order promising, SC planning
Specific Implementation Toolkit No (OPL Studio 3.7 and Visual Studio 6.0)
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (order promising interaction schema)
- 640 -
Authors Yain-Whar, Edmond, Dumas & Chong (2007)

Approach/Project UMTac-04
Comparison of two different strategies in SCM, namely buy-to-build and
Contribution
build-to-order using an agent-based
Application Sector Computer industry
APS Modules NI
Individual Agent Organization Some (different planning strategies)
Table 2. Studied works for the year 2007
Authors Forget et al. (2008)

Approach/Project Multi-Behaviour Agents for SC Planning
An agent-based model employing multi-behaviour strategies for SC
Contribution planning, which are able to react differently according to stimuli from
the business environment
SC Problem SC planning; Coordination
Application Sector Lumber industry
No (generic programming tools and optimization used ILOG SOLVER and
ILOG CPLEX)
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (two different coordination schemas were studied)
Individual Agent Organization Yes (different agent behaviours for SC planning)
Authors Jung, Chen & Jeong (2008)
Approach/Project NI
A decentralized supply chain planning framework based on minimal-
Contribution information sharing between the manufacturer and the third party
logistics provider
SC Problem Planning, Collaboration, Information Sharing
Specific Implementation Toolkit No (only ILOG-OPL Studio)
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (a simple information sharing schema)
Individual Agent Organization Some (some decision models for distribution and production planning)
Authors Lau, Li, Song & Kwok (2008)
Approach/Project NI
A multi-agent system where agents are subject to an adjustable
autonomy, which is changed during runtime as a response to
Contribution
uncertainties from the environment. Also, a coalition formation approach
is employed to establish global coherence through negotiation
SC Problem SC adaptability for entities' autonomy
Application Sector Defence industry
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (a coalition formation approach)
Individual Agent Organization Some (individuals’ autonomy)
Authors Lin, Kuo & Lin (2008)
Approach/Project NegoGA (Negotiation and Genetic Algorithm)
A distributed coordination mechanism that integrates negotiation
Contribution
techniques with genetic algorithm to plan quasi-optimal order fulfilment
SC Problem Coordination
Application Sector Modul manufacturing
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (a negotiation approach)
Authors Paolucci et al. (2008)
Approach/Project Supply Chain Operations Planning (SCOP) System
Contribution A d-APS framework for Small and Medium Enterprises
SC Problem SC Planning (Sales & Operations Planning)
- 641 -
APS Modules NI
Some (a bidding approach with a negotiation mechanism based on
Social Agent Organization
Contract-Net Protocol)
Individual Agent Organization Some (some decision variables are explicitly used by the mediator)
Authors Santa-Eulalia et al. (2008)
Approach/Project NI
A conceptual framework for modelling agent-based simulation for SC
Contribution
planning
ILOG CPLEX)
Methodological approach Yes (The main contribution is of methodological nature)
Some (they explain some traditional modules, such as procurement,
APS Modules
scheduling, inventory projection and forecasting)
Authors Benisch, Sardinha, Andrews, Ravichandran & Sadeh (2009)

Approach/Project CMieux
An agent approach called CMieux in the context of the TAC SCM (Trading
Agent Competition). It implements adaptive strategies to support the
Contribution integration of procurement, bidding and planning functionality. They
performed experiments to demonstrate empirically the performance of
their approach
SC Problem SC planning; Coordination
APS Modules Yes (the notion of d-APS is identified)
Individual Agent Organization Some (agents mechanism for SC planning)
Authors Cid-Yanez, Frayret & Léger (2009)
Approach/Project (FEPP) FORAC Experimental Planning Platform
Analysis of some demand-driven planning approaches that propagate
Contribution
demand information upstream the supply chain
APS Modules Yes (Agents are specialized in different APS planning areas)
Authors Gaudreault, Forget, Frayret, Rousseau & D’Amours (2009)
Approach/Project NI
Three agent-specific mathematical models to plan and schedule a
softwood SC composed of sawing, drying and finishing activities. Specific
Contribution
coordination mechanisms are also proposed to assure that the resulting
plans are coherent with each other
SC Problem SC Planning; coordination
Application Sector Softwood lumber
APS Modules Some (specific modules for three SC entities at the operational level)
Social Agent Organization Some (a coordination mechanism)
Individual Agent Organization Some (specific modules for the three SC units)
Authors Ivanov (2009)
Approach/Project DIMA (decentralized integrated modelling approach)
A novel approach for comprehensive multi-disciplinary modelling of
Contribution distributed large-scale business systems with decentralized decision-
making and control
SC Problem SC planning and control
Yes (a macro approach covering conceptual
modelling, mathematical modelling, and software development)
APS Modules NI
- 642 -
Authors Lemieux, D'Amours, Gaudreault & Frayret (2009)

Contribution A multi-agent simulation environment for SC planning
APS Modules Some (they developed some operational planning modules)
Social Agent Organization Some (conversation mechanisms are proposed)
Authors Pan, Leung, Moon & Yeung (2009)
Approach/Project NI
A UML-based modelling approach for representing SC and a genetic
Contribution algorithm and fuzzy inference mechanism for determining a reorder point
in uncertain contexts
SC Problem Coordination, order promising
Application Sector Fashion industry
Specific Implementation Toolkit No (Matlab)
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (interactions are indicated in general terms)
Individual Agent Organization Some (a model is created for calculating reorder points)
Authors Santa-Eulalia et al. (2009b)
Contribution Testing different SC strategies in an agent-based environment
SC Problem SC Planning and Control
Application Sector Forest products industry
APS Modules Some (Agents are specialized in different APS planning areas)
Social Agent Organization Some (a coordination mechanism)
Authors Silva et al. (2009)
Approach/Project NI
Proposes a distributed optimization framework for SC planning based on a
Contribution
meta-heuristic called ant colony optimization
SC Problem Cooperation
Specific Implementation Toolkit No (Matlab)
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (specific information sharing schemas)
Individual Agent Organization Some (agents dedicated to supply, logistics and distribution were defined)
Authors Chan & Chan (2010)

Approach/Project NI
An adaptive coordination strategy for improving fill rate while reducing
Contribution
costs without using information sharing
SC Problem Coordination
Specific Implementation Toolkit No (Java)
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (coordination mechanisms)
Individual Agent Organization Some (decision models for two-echelon SC)
Authors Ivanov et al. (2010)
Approach/Project A-SCM (Adaptive SCM)
A multi-structural framework (models and tools) for the planning and
Contribution control of adaptive SC using principles from control theory, operations
research and agent-based modelling
SC Problem SC planning, coordination
They mention that it was applied to special machinery building and textile
Application Sector
branches, but these cases are not discussed in the paper
Specific Implementation Toolkit Yes (Anylogic)
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Yes (a multi-structural process)
Individual Agent Organization Some (specific roles and goals of modules)
- 643 -
Authors Karam, Tranvouez, Espinasse & Ferrarini et al. (2010)

Approach/Project NI
A methodological framework for modelling agent-based simulation for SC
Contribution
planning based on conceptual and operational models
SC Problem General problems related to SCM
Application Sector Golf club industry
Specific Implementation Toolkit Yes (Majorca and Analogic)
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Yes (several interactions possibilities are explicitly mapped)
Individual Agent Organization Yes (different agents' roles are identified conceptually)
Authors Kim & Cho (2010)
Approach/Project NI
Negotiation approach for SC formation using mediators. They compared
Contribution
their approach with a heuristic and centralized one
SC Problem Negotiation
Specific Implementation Toolkit No (C/C++, ILOG CPLEX)
APS Modules NI
Social Agent Organization Some (a negotiation approach is proposed)
Individual Agent Organization Some (scheduling models for agents)
Authors Santa-Eulalia et al. (2010)
FAMASS (FORAC Architecture for Modelling Agent-based Simulation Supply
Approach/Project
Chain Planning)
A methodological framework for modelling agent-based simulation for SC
Contribution
planning applied in the forest products industry
SC Problem General problems related to SCM and agents
ILOG CPLEX)
APS Modules Yes (A specific modelling schema is proposed, which is called SC cube)
Social Agent Organization Yes (a specific modelling schema is proposed)
Individual Agent Organization Yes (a specific modelling schema is proposed)
The following sub-sections discuss the main criteria surveyed.
4.2 Main Contributions
Contributions in the domain cover dissimilar topics. For example, several papers
propose agent-based architectures (Frayret et al., 2007; Andreev et al., 2007;
Feng et al., 2007; Monteiro et al., 2007; Venkatadri & Kiralp, 2007), some deal
with the famous TAC – Trade Agent Competition (Andrews et al., 2007; Si,
Edmond, Dumas & Chong, 2007; Benisch et al., 2009), certain approaches propose
coordination and information-sharing mechanisms (Lee & Kumara, 2007), others
focus on mathematical models for agents (Gaudreault et al., 2009), a number use
an agent-based environment only as a testbed to test SC strategies (Cid-Yanez et
al., 2009; Santa-Eulalia et al., 2009b), and finally some propose agent-based
methodological frameworks (e.g. Karam et al., 2010; Santa-Eulalia et al., 2010;
Labarthe et al., 2007).
It was observed that the terms framework, architecture, approaches and

methodology were very frequently employed in many studies to define the
- 644 -
contribution of the papers, but no definition was provided for them. For example, in
the modelling area (particularly in the Enterprise Modelling; Vernadat, 1996), these
terms can have different meanings, but the surveyed works mostly neglect to
specify the nature of their contribution. This is probably an indication that the
surveyed area is still an emerging domain requiring some organization.
SC Problems
Several SC problems were identified: general problems related to SCM,

manufacturing and SC integration, SC planning, scheduling, control and execution,
cooperation, coordination, negotiation, information sharing, SC adaptability, order
promising, and multi-level lot-sizing.
It is possible to affirm that three macro categories exist in this area, covering most
of the papers: 1) Relationships in SC, including the following categories:
coordination, cooperation, information sharing, negotiation and integration; 2)
Production Planning and Control, comprising the following sub-categories: SC
planning, scheduling, control and execution; 3) Others, including papers related to
general problems in SCM and agents, as well as one about SC adaptability.
When considering possible repetition (i.e. when a paper can be classified in more
than one macro category), it is possible to see that: 17 papers (50%) are in the
macro category Relationships in SC (including Chan & Chan, 2010; Lin et al., 2008;
Lee & Kumara, 2007); 22 papers (65%) are related to Production Planning and
Control (Lemieux et al., 2009; Jankowska et al., 2007; Orcun et al., 2007); and
finally, there are only four papers (12%) in the third macro category (i.e., three
papers related to general problems: Karam et al., 2010; Santa-Eulalia et al., 2010;
Labarthe et al., 2007 – and one paper about SC adaptability, i.e. Lau et al., 2008).
Figure 3 summarizes these findings.
This led us to believe that d-APS researchers are focusing mostly on two
mainstream subjects (Relationships in SC and PPC), and that there is some
interesting room for other domains. For example, problems related to SC
governance, sustainability, adaptability, network design and other domains are
lacking in the recent literature.
Applications
Among the selected 34 papers, 18 (53%) are of a theoretical nature (Ivanov, 2009)
and 16 (47%) provide real applications (Cid-Yanez et al., 2009). Seven of the
- 645 -
theoretical papers (21%) also illustrate their approach through conceptual (not
real) industrial applications (Si et al., 2007).
Despite the fact that applications are usually considered relevant for having papers
published in prestigious journals and conferences, more than half of them (18) do
not provide real applications and 12 (35%) do not provide any at all. Among those
manuscripts presenting some kind of application, most of them (28) are
demonstrations (e.g. proofs of concept) that are not linked with an industrial-scale
situation. None of the papers present mature applications being commercialized or
close to the market. This indicates that, so far. d-APS systems are mostly at
laboratorial stages and that many efforts need to be made in order to gain more
practical insights.
The last four tables also surveyed the application sector of the 16 studies
concerned, which are: airport logistics, laundry, pharmaceuticals, forest products,
bicycles, golf clubs, defence, bronze taps, packing, computers and toys. In the case
of theoretical papers employing conceptual industrial cases, the following sectors
were found: computers, steel, mould and fashion. It is interesting to note that eight
manuscripts are about the forest products industry. This indicates that the
application is quite diversified, hence enriching the domain, although many
applications are of an academic nature.
Toolkits and Methodologies
Modelling toolkits are not employed massively, since only seven manuscripts
(20%) out of 34 utilize a known toolkit: four use JADE, one works with AnyLogic
and two employ together Majorca and Anylogic.
Among those works not mentioning any specialized agent toolkit, it was observed
that generic languages are usually employed (mainly C#, C/C++, and visual basic)
connected to some optimization system (e.g. ILOG SOLVER and CPLEX). Other
technologies used for implementation are ILOG-OPL Studio, LINDO, Excel, Crystal
Ball, some discrete-event simulation tool, and Visual Studio. No correlation was
identified between the methodological aspects and the agent toolkits.
In terms of methodological aspects, 27 papers (79%) out of 34 do not explicitly

mention the use of them. On the other hand, a small quantity of two (6%) papers
(Ivanov et al., 2007a; Ivanov et al., 2007b) present some indications that they
were inspired by methodological aspects, such as the definition of conceptual
models, mathematical models and simulation tools. Only five (15%) papers
- 646 -
explicitly present methodological elements and four contributions are of a

methodological nature (Karam et al., 2010; Santa-Eulalia et al., 2010; Ivanov,
2009; Labarthe et al., 2007). The methodological aspects of these five works will
be detailed in subsection 4.3.
APS Functions and Modules
Despite the fact that the studied works being reviewed can be classified as dealing
with d-APS systems according to our definition, few articles (i.e. 9 out of 34,
representing 26%) detail (i.e. Yes and Some) APS modules. Some of them present
agents specialized in traditional APS modules, such as procurement, scheduling,
inventory and forecasting (Benisch et al., 2009); others present agents specialized
in specific industrial domains (e.g. operational planning for sawing, drying and
finishing operations, such as Cid-Yanez et al., 2009, Lemieux et al., 2009, and
Gaudreault et al., 2009); and in one specific case a specialized modelling schema is
proposed to explicitly represent a d-APS system (Santa-Eulalia et al., 2010).
The evaluation of this criterion allows us to believe that a complete and integrated
view of d-APS is still not properly covered in the reviewed literature. Most of the
works do not intend to propose a generic architecture for d-APS systems,
specialized in specific domains. At the present time, almost all of the papers deal
with agent-based SC planning and scheduling using optimization approaches
without explicitly declaring that APS (or d-APS) technology is being used. This
indicated that d-APS is still a new research domain which is not uniformly defined.
Social and Individual Agents Issues
When dealing with d-APS, two facets of these systems have to be considered: social
and individual abilities of the multi-agent system.
In terms of the social aspects, it was not possible to clearly identify them in 10
manuscripts (29%). Despite the fact that in some cases terms such as
communication and conversation are mentioned, they do not provide any approach
for modelling social aspects of the agent society. For example, Jankowska et al.
(2007) is much more dedicated to the layered technical architecture and the main
computing technologies it integrates.
On the other hand, 20 works (59%) are classified as proposing “some” discussion
about social aspects. They do not provide any complete modelling approach to
identify and simulate several different types of social structures or social protocols,
but they address these aspects somehow; sometimes one paper just mentions or
- 647 -
uses one or two social aspects in a limited way; occasionally they take one specific
aspect (e.g. negotiation) and thoroughly explore it by proposing protocols, for
example. For instance, Kim & Cho (2010) present an approach based on
cooperative relationships, information sharing and negotiation.
Finally, four papers (12%) are classified as “yes” because they propose a dedicated
set of modelling schemas to capture different social facets of d-APS systems.
Karam et al. (2010) provide an appropriate set of abstractions to identify, develop
and describe the organizational structure of an SC as well as the dynamic relations
between the entities that make up an SC. Santa-Eulalia et al. (2010) also present a
specialized modelling schema, called Social Agent Organization Analysis, to capture
different social structures and protocols. Ivanov et al. (2010) discuss an approach
for coping with a multiple structure design and changeability of structural
parameters due to different factors at all stages of the supply chain life cycle.
Labarthe et al. (2007) created a dynamic and structural model based on
responsibility networks in SC.
Using exactly the same logic employed for the social aspects, the 34 surveyed
papers revealed that the individual aspects of the agent society are not considered
in seven (21%) manuscripts. E.g., Andreev et al. (2007) propose a concept called
Open Demand and Resource Networks, which dynamically matches demands and
resources. This can be used to define a variety of individuals in a network, but their
individual aspects (e.g. roles, internal architectures, etc.) are not identified.
In 22 papers (65%) out of 34, some individual aspects were treated. For example,
some works approach one (or more) individual aspects of each agent, such as Lau
et al. (2008), who propose an approach to manage the agent’s individual autonomy
according to environmental changes.
A more complete solution suggesting detailed ways of modelling several individual

aspects of SC was found in only five papers (15%). Karam et al. (2010) provide
some abstractions to define agents’ behaviours that can be of reactive, deliberative
or hybrid nature. Santa-Eulalia et al. (2010) also propose a specialized modelling
schema, called Individual Agent Organization Analysis, to capture different
individual characteristics. Ivanov et al. (2010) put forward functional agent models
for describing active elements. Based on the actor-agent paradigm, Labarthe et al.
(2007) suggest two individual roles for agents, i.e. cognitive and reactive, with
some encapsulation principles and a behavioural representation method.
- 648 -
It is interesting to note that three out of four papers covering social and individual
aspects of agents’ society also deal with methodological approaches. The exception
is Ivanov et al. (2010), but these authors do use methodological elements in some
of their previous works.
Figure 3 summarizes the main findings of the studied works.
Figure 3. Summarizing the main findings of the studied works
4.3 Methodological Frameworks for Modelling d-APS
This section discusses the papers classified as somehow tackling methodological

aspects. In order to do so, specific aspects to perform a descriptive evaluation were
identified. They are:
 Modelling Phases: it was verified whether the framework adheres to the

methodology for simulation of distributed systems developed by Galland et
al. (2003), comprising the following traditional development phases: i)
analysis: an abstract description of the modelled supply chain planning
system containing the simulation requirements, in which the functionalities
of simulation are identified and described in general terms; ii) specification:
translation of the information derived from the analysis into a formal model.
- 649 -
As the analysis phase does not necessarily allow the obtaining of a formal
model, the specification examines the analysis requirements and builds a
model based on a formal approach; iii) design: creation of a data-
processing model that describes the specification model in more detail. In
the case of an agent-based system, design models are close to how agents
operate.
 Modelling Levels: the modelling levels comprise two issues: i) supply chain:
refers to the supply chain planning problem, i.e. the business viewpoint; ii)
agent: the supply chain domain problem is translated into an agent-based
view; i.e. the technical viewpoint.
 Descriptive Evaluation: this part of the evaluation follows the Karageorgos &
Mehandjiev (2004) approach, as explained in subsection 3. In this case,
only 8 out of 12 proposed criteria were evaluated, since 4 of them were not
present in any surveyed work. They are: heuristics support, non-functional
aspect, design automation, and tool support.
 Modelling Formalism: the integration of specific modelling formalisms in the

methodological frameworks was verified.
Previously in step 2, seven works proposing methodological frameworks were

identified. Due to their similarities, these works were assembled into four groups:
Karam et al. (2010), FAMASS (Santa-Eulalia et al., 2010 and Santa-Eulalia et al.,
2008) DIMA (Ivanov 2009; Ivanov et al., 2007a; and Ivanov et al., 2007b), and
Labarthe et al. (2007). Table 6 summarizes the descriptive evaluation.
Methodological Phases Modelling Levels
Domain models
Approach Analysis Specification Design (SC Planning and Agent models
Control)
Three models:
CROM (Conceptual
The phase called Conceptual Role Organization
The phase called
Karam et Modelling generates models Model), CAOM
Operational Modelling
al. NI for roles and organization, NI (Conceptual Agent
generates the
(2010) which are not of executable Organization Model)
executable models
nature and OPAM
(Operational Agent
Model)
They do not propose Two approaches
This is the main dedicated models for Similarly to are proposed: Two approaches are
contribution of specification, but they specification, they one for defining also proposed: one
this work. employ Labarthe et al.’s propose a set of the simulation covering the social
Several (2007) to generate conversion rules to problem and organization
FAMASS reference models specification models from translate analysis another one for (structure and
are provided to the stated requirements. A requirements into identifying protocols) and
define functional set of conversion rules is design models in functional another for the
requirements for proposed to derive accordance with requirements for individual agents’
simulation specification models from Labarthe et al. (2007) the distributed abilities
their analysis planning system
- 650 -
Methodological Phases Modelling Levels
Domain models
Approach Analysis Specification Design (SC Planning and Agent models
Control)
It proposes a
The separation between Two contributions can
They propose functional agent
specification and design be identified as being
conceptual model for describing
phases is not clear. part of thedesign
models for active elements, a
However, they propose phase: i) a general
decision-making, general schema for
modelling approaches for indication on how the
including agents’ interactions
DIMA NI network design, adaptive decision models work
planning, for customer order
planning and control, and for planning,
execution and execution. Also, a
network control. These monitoring and
stability general MAS
approaches can potentially reconfiguration; ii) a
recovery/reconfi functional
support specification and macro schema for the
guration architecture is
design phases MAS architecture
proposed
A Conceptual Agent
The Operational A specific
The Conceptual Level, Model and an
Labarthe Level, which delimits Domain Model is
leading to the elaboration of Operational Agent
et al. NI how the agent-based proposed for SC
the Domain Model and the Model are specific
(2007) system will work on a and mass
Conceptual Agent Model agent-dedicated
simulation platform customization
modelling
approaches
Only three types
of agent
Generality is
architectures are
high.
allowed:
Abstractabily is
cognitive,
Karam et Agents roles and collective Design perspective is present, with
reactive and AUML, RCA
al. behaviours are explicitly top-down, with no three major
hybrid. The (Tranvouez, 2006)
(2010) identified support for reuse abstract levels
methodology
(conceptual,
proposes three
operational and
modelling steps
exploitation)
with specific
modelling rules
It presents high
It does not limit
generality in d-
the agent
APS context.
architecture one The design
Also,
can employ. It perspective is mostly
Agents roles and collective abstractability is
proposes four a top-down approach,
FAMASS behaviours are explicitly present through UML, AUML
phases with but a bottom-up is
identified four modelling
several steps and allowed. There is no
levels (domain,
dedicated support for reuse
agent,
modelling
infrastructure
guidelines
and simulation)
It is specialized
in virtual
Open enterprises and
architecture, no collaborative
agent type is networks
Some agent roles are
favoured. Only (defined as a Only mathematical
formally identified (for
general The design special type of modelling, but the
adaptive planning and
engineering perspective is not SC), but almost authors mention
DIMA control). A collective
lifecycle phases clear. There is no all notions can that some dedicated
behaviour is not explicitly
(conceptual support for reuse be generalized to formalisms are
detailed, only general
model, traditional SC. under development
indications are provided
mathematical Three abstraction
model, and levels are
simulation tool) proposed:
concept, model
and software
The generality is
between medium
to high, since it
Only two types is dedicated to
of agent mass
architectures are customization,
allowed: but almost all Responsibility
Labarthe cognitive and Agents roles and collective Design perspective is concepts can be Networks, ABR
et al. reactive. The behaviours are explicitly top-down, with no generalized. (Tranvouez, 2001),
(2007) methodology identified support for reuse Abstractabily is AUML and some own
proposes three definitively formalisms
modelling steps present, with
with specific three major
modelling rules abstract levels
(conceptual,
operational and
exploitation)
Table 6. Studied methodological works organized into four groups according to the project
Karam et al. (2010) present an organization oriented methodological framework for

modelling and simulation of SC. It allows observations of different levels of details
while reproducing the SC behaviour. This methodological framework is structured
- 651 -
according to a conceptual and an operational abstraction levels. At the conceptual

level, the modelling is based on a Conceptual Role Organizational Model (CROM),
which is then refined into a Conceptual Agent Organizational Model (CAOM). At the
operational level, modelling is mainly based on the Operational Agent Model
(OPAM). This framework permits the study of the impact of a specific SC
organizational structure and its related management policies on SC performance.
The FAMASS (FORAC Architecture for Modelling Agent-based Simulation for Supply
chain planning) framework (Santa-Eulalia et al., 2010; Santa-Eulalia et al., 2008)
takes its inspiration from theoretical contributions found in the field of simulation,
systems theory, distributed decision making and agent-based software engineering.
It proposes a conceptual framework for modelling simulation requirements in d-APS
systems. At the conceptual level, FAMASS proposes a schema for defining the
simulation problem and translates it into a distributed model. Next, at the agent
level, one can convert the distributed model into an agent-based system comprising
social and individual aspects. The framework is pretty much dedicated to the
analysis phase, but indications on how to transform analysis models into
specification and design ones are provided.
The DIMA (Decentralized Integrated Modelling Approach) (Ivanov, 2009; Ivanov et

al., 2007a; Ivanov et al., 2007b) introduces a new conceptual architecture for
multi-disciplinary modelling of structural planning and operations of adaptive SC
with dynamics considerations, employing concepts from control theory, operations
research, and agent-based modelling. The main objective is to establish a basis for
SC modelling where partial models and algorithms of SC planning and control can
be created. In their approach, conceptual business models, mathematical models
and software architectures are matched with each other taking into account specific
SC features related to dynamics and agility.
Labarthe et al. (2007) propose an approach for modelling customer-centric supply

chain in the context of mass customization. They define a conceptual model for
supply chain modelling and show how multi-agent systems can be implemented
using predefined agent platforms. After creating the Domain Model, the Conceptual
Agent Model and the Operational Agent Model, a Multi-Agent System is
implemented and a set of experimental plans supports the realization of simulation
experiments.
Three of these projects are somehow connected. Taking their inspiration from the
agent-based software engineering school, Labarthe et al. (2007) strongly influenced
Karam et al. (2010), and it is largely employed in the FAMASS approach for the
- 652 -
specification and design phases. On the other hand, the DIMA approach follows a
different school, more influenced by the system and control theory.
Table 6 helps us understand some issues. First of all, in terms of methodological

phases, one can note that the unique work dealing explicitly with the analysis phase
is FAMASS, in which a dedicated set of theoretical models combined with specific
guidelines and formalisms are proposed to support analysts in mapping function
requirements of d-APS systems. The remaining works do not mention the analysis
phase. As for the specification and design phases, excluding the FAMASS approach,
all works can be used for specification and design. Although they do not state it,
the proposed frameworks contain elements to do so. For example, the conceptual
and operation models of Karam et al. (2010) and of Labarthe et al. (2007) provide
guidelines to define formal (specification phase) and executable (design phase)
models. Perhaps the most complete work for specification and design is Labarthe et
al. (2007), although it is not formally dedicated to d-APS systems, since no APS
functions and modules are explored. In fact, the sole approach entirely covering
this issue is the FAMASS framework.
As for the modelling level, it is interesting to note that Karam et al. (2010) do not
provide domain models for defining SC planning and control mechanisms. The other
three approaches provide one or more artefacts to do so. For example, FAMASS
provides a specific set of models for defining the simulation problem as well as the
distributed SC planning functions. Also, DIMA proposes some decision-making
models for SC planning, control and reconfiguration. Additionally, Labarthe et al.
(2007) provide several modelling objects to create an SC system. Despite their
significant differences, all four approaches contain elements for defining agent
models. The only approach dealing superficially with this issue is DIMA, in which
agents are only generally defined.
The descriptive evaluation according to Karageorgos & Mehandjiev (2004) indicates

that the surveyed works have several elements of a complete agent-based
methodology, but some elements are still lacking in many works. As identified
previously, each approach deals with heuristics support, non-functional aspects,
design automation, and each proposes a tool support. In terms of concepts,
FAMASS and DIMA do not limit the agent architecture one can use, while the other
two favour two classic types (i.e. cognitive and reactive ones). In terms of “design
in scope”, all of them provide specific modelling steps and rules, although this is not
totally clear in DIMA. As for the “models” perspective, agents’ roles are clearly
identified in all of them. In terms of “process”, it can be said that most approaches
- 653 -
follow basically a top-down approach, even if FAMASS would also allow for a
bottom-up logic. This criterion is not completely clear in the DIMA approach. In
terms of “pragmatics”, although Labarthe et al. (2007) is dedicated to mass
customization in SC and DIMA is for dynamic SC (mainly virtual enterprises and
collaborative networks), their “generality” can be considered high, as well as their
“abstractability”.
Finally, apart from DIMA, which employs only mathematical modelling, all of them
use specific software engineering formalisms, notably derived from UML.
5 Discussion and final remarks
To model complex supply chain planning processes, a set of modelling techniques

and approaches exist. In an attempt to organize the literature review in the area, a
taxonomical organization was proposed. This indicates that a variety of ways exist
to capture SC behaviours, understand, organize, represent d-APS problems and
later implement and use d-APS solutions.
Based on this classification, this work focused on the methodological aspects of the
agent-based frameworks for d-APS systems, a specific category of the existing
modelling and simulation approaches (see subsection 2.2). Two comparative
analyses were done: first, a general search covering works dealing with supply
chain planning using agent-based approaches was performed; later it was
channelled into discussing the approaches explicitly containing methodological
aspects for modelling agent-based systems.
5.1 Main conclusions
The first comparative analysis indicated that the main contributions of the surveyed
works cover several topics, but many propose modelling structures (e.g. modelling
frameworks, architectures, approaches and methodologies) without formally
defining what these structures are. It is known that these labels can have different
meanings and implications, but this is not clearly considered in the concerned
literature. In terms of “SC problems” being treated by these manuscripts, a trend to
focus on two aspects was noted: “SC relationships” (i.e. coordination, cooperation,
information sharing, negotiation and integration) and “production planning and
control” (i.e. SC planning, scheduling, control and execution). There is some
interesting room for other domains, such as SC governance, sustainability,
adaptability, and network design, for instance. In terms of applications, despite the
fact that some were found in several domains (such as pharmaceuticals, forest
- 654 -
products, bicycles, golf clubs, defence), more than half of the works are of a
theoretical nature, with few real-scale industrial applications. In terms of technical
aspects, it was found that: agent-based “modelling toolkits” are employed in less
than 20% of the identified works; in almost 80% of them no methodological aspect
is formally treated; “APS architectures and engines” are not considered
unambiguously in almost all papers; the “social and individual aspects” of the agent
society is not taken into account in a clear manner in many of the selected papers.
By exploring this first comparative analysis, one can see that many approaches are
highly specialized in specific domains and cannot properly capture the complexity of
a d-APS system in general terms. One of the most important findings is that most
of the literature fails to understand “methodological concerns” and does not provide
answers to simple questions, regarding what type of models and simulations can be
performed for treating different SC planning problems.
This conclusion led us to an additional comparative analysis that focused on the

methodological aspects of some of the works. It was identified that only 21%
address methodological concerns. Among them, only one paper is dedicated to the
“analysis phase”, and none of them covers the entire developed process in an
integrated manner. The most complete work integrating “specification and design”
is not formally dedicated to d-APS systems, since no APS functions and modules are
explored. Additionally, the sole approach that clearly covers d-APS systems entirely
(with specialized entities) does not propose an integrated modelling process from
analysis to experimentation. In general terms, it is possible to affirm that different
“modelling levels” and “agent models” are identified in the selected works. On the
other hand, the descriptive evaluation using the Karageourgous & Mehandjiev
(2004) approach indicates that the surveyed works have many elements of a
complete agent-based methodology, but many issues are still lacking, including
heuristics support, non-functional aspects, design automation, and tool support
proposal. The remaining elements are treated somehow by the papers, with
different degrees of detail and completeness.
All these findings indicated that the domain is flourishing and that many interesting
theoretical and practical implications and opportunities exist.
5.2 Theoretical and practical implications and opportunities
It is important to highlight one of the most fundamental implications of the general

scenario in this research field. When talking about supply chain planning systems
using some sort of advanced technology (i.e. optimization) and agent-based
modelling, the literature still lacks a common representation and understanding of
- 655 -
the different components and decision processes within the supply chain
encapsulated in an integrative methodological guideline. As a consequence, there is
no collective understanding (from both an industrial and academic perspective) of
the distributed planning problem entailing a semantic unification in the area that
provides both the terminology of the domain and the structure of the concepts to
be employed.
In this sense, a novel methodological approach for integrated and collaborative

modelling would (i) streamline the development process of innovative SC planning
tools; (i) enhance the cooperation of different and multidisciplinary models (and
disperse research efforts) of the community (including academics and
practitioners); (ii) ease the information and knowledge sharing throughout these
models; and ultimately it would (iii) allow for a practical integration of different d-
APS from different enterprises in a supply chain in order to facilitate the
accomplishment of global supply chain planning.
We believe that the present work can contribute to shedding light on this emerging
field and pave the way for new and innovative researches towards a complete
methodological framework for d-APS systems, thus permitting academics and
practitioners to develop and use such systems to improve the SC planning domain.
5.3 Limitations and future research
Several limitations of the present work open up interesting opportunities for future
research efforts. The first one concerns the search scope, as defined in Section 3,
i.e. the period covered, the selected scientific databases, the selected language and
the use of only one assessment framework for the descriptive evaluation part.
Future research shall extend this search coverage in order to provide a more
complete systematic review.
Derived from the main implications and opportunities pointed out in this work, the
team is presently working on the development of a novel methodology extending
the work of Santa-Eulalia et al. (2010). The main efforts are related to the
extension of the methodology from the analysis phase to further steps of the
development process, such as specification, design, implementation and simulation.
Another research effort behind this new development is the creation of a
metamodel comprising the main modelling entities, decision processes, social and
individual aspects of d-APS systems. A future version of this framework is to be
published shortly.
- 656 -
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the NSERC (National Science and Engineering Research
Council of Canada), the FORAC Research Consortium (www.forac.ulaval.ca) and the
CAFIR (Research and Creation Committee of the TÉLUQ-UQAM) for their financial
support, as well as the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and
recommendations to improve the quality of the paper.
References
Amouzegar, M., & Moshirvaziri, K. (2006). A simulation framework for networked

queue models: Analysis of queue bounds in a G/G/c supply chain. Journal of
Applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences, 2006, 1–13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/JAMDS/2006/87514
Andreev, M., Rzevski, J., Skobelev, P., Shveykin, P., Tsarev, A., & Tugashev, A.
(2007). Adaptive Planning for Supply Chain Networks. Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Industrial Applications of Holonic and Multi-Agent
Systems, Regensburg, Germany.
Andrews, J., Benisch, M., Sardinha, A., & Sadeh, N. (2007). What differentiates a
winning agent: An information gain based analysis of TAC-SCM. Proceedings of
the Trading Agent Design and Analysis Workshop, Vancouver, Canada.
Baumgaertel, H., & John, U. (2003). Combining agent-based supply net simulation
and constraint technology for highly efficient simulation of supply networks using
APS systems. Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, New
Orleans, USA.
Beaudoin, D., Lebel, L., & Frayret, J. (2007). Tactical supply chain planning in the
forest products industry through optimization and scenario-based analysis.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 37, 128-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x06-223
Becheikh, N. (2005). La revue systématique de littérature : Utilité et méthode pour

les sciences de l’administration. Proceedings of the Chaire FCRSS/IRSC sur le
transfer de connaissances et l’innovaiton, Québec, Canada.
Benisch, M., Sardinha, A., Andrews, J., Ravichandran, R., & Sadeh, N. (2009).
CMieux: Adaptive strategies for competitive supply chain trading. SIGecom Exch.,
6(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1150735.1150737
- 657 -
Biwer, A.G., Griffith, S., & Cooney, C. (2005). Uncertainty analysis of penicillin V
production using Monte Carlo simulation. Biotechnology and Bioengineering,
90(2), 167-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bit.20359
Brugali, D., & Sycara, K. (2000). Towards agent oriented application frameworks.
ACM Computing Surveys, 32(1), 21–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/351936.351957
Bussmann, S., Jennings, N., & Wooldridge, M. (2004). Multi-agent systems for
manufacturing control: A design methodology. Berlin: Springer.
Carvalho, R., & Custodio, L. (2005). A multiagent systems approach for managing
supply-chain problems: A learning perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Integration of Knowledge Intensive Multi-agent,
Systems, Boston, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/KIMAS.2005.1427124
Cavalieri, S.C., Cesarotti, V., & Introna, V. (2003). A multiagent model for
coordinated distribution chain planning. Journal of Organizational Computing and
Electronic Commerce, 13(3-4), 267-287.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2003.9681164
Chan, H.K., & Chan, F.T.S. (2010). Comparative study of adaptability and flexibility
in distributed manufacturing supply chains. Decision Support Systems, 48(2),
331-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.09.001
Chatfield, D.C., Harrison, T.P., & Hayya, J.C. (2006). SISCO: An object-oriented
supply chain simulation system. Decision Support System, 42, 422–434.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.02.002
Chatfield, D.C., Hayya, J.C., & Harrison. T.P. (2007). A multi-formalism architecture
for agent-based, order-centric supply chain simulation. Simulation Modelling
Practice and Theory, 15, 153–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2006.09.018
Chen, Y.M., & Wei, C.W. (2007). Multi-agent-oriented approach to supply chain
planning and scheduling in make-to-order manufacturing. International Journal of
Electronic Business, 5(4), 427-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEB.2007.014787
Chen, M., Yang, T., & Yen C. (2007). Investigating the value of information sharing
in multi-echelon supply chains. Quality and Quantity, 41(3), 497-511.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9086-2
- 658 -
Chwif, L., Barretto, M.R.P., & Saliby, E. (2002). Supply chain analysis: Spreadsheet
or simulation?. Proceedings of the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference, San Diego,
USA.
Cid-Yanez, F. Frayret, J.M., & Léger, F. (2009). Evaluation of push and pull
strategies in lumber production: An agent-based approach. International Journal
of Production Research, 47(22), 6295-6319.
Dam, K., & Winikoff, M. (2004). Comparing agent-oriented methodologies. Agent-

Oriented Information Systems. In P. Giorgini, B. Henderson-Sellers, & M. Winikoff
(Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 78–93). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
DoD (1998). Department of Defense (DoD), Modeling and Simulation (M&S)

Glossary, DOD 5000.59-M, January 1998.
Dudek, G., & Stadtler, G. (2005). Negotiation-based collaborative planning between

supply chains partners. European Journal of Operational Research, 163(3), 668-
687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.01.014
Egri, P., & Vancza, J. (2005). Cooperative planning in the supply network – a multi-
agent organization model. Proceedings of the 4th International Central and
Eastern European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, Budapest, Hungary.
Emerson, D., & Piramuthu, S. (2004). Agent-based framework for dynamic supply
chain configuration. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Hawaii, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265407
Escalas, J. (2004). Imagine yourself in the product. Journal of Advertising, 33(2),

37-48.
Feng, S.C., Helaakoski, H., Jurrens, K., & Kipinä, J. (2007). Software agents-
enabled systems coalition for integrated manufacturing processes and supply
chain management. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and
Management, 11(2), 157-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMTM.2007.013183
Forget, P., D'Amours, S., Frayret, J.M., & Gaudreault, J. (2008). Study of the
performance of multi-behaviour agents for supply chain planning. Computers in
Industry, 60(9), 698-708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2009.05.005
Fox, M., Barbuceanu, M., & Teigen, R. (2000). Agent-oriented supply-chain

management. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 12(2/3),
165-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008195614074
- 659 -
Fox, M., Barbuceanu, M., Gani, M., & Beck, C. (1993). The integrated supply chain
management system. Internal Report - Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Toronto, Canada. http://www.eil.utoronto.ca/iscm-descr.html - Accessed
October 2006.
Frayret, J.M., D’Amours, S., Rousseau, A., Harvey, S., & Gaudreault, J. (2007).
Agent-based supply-chain planning in the forest products industry. International
Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 19(4), 358–391.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10696-008-9034-z
Galland, S. (2001). Approche multi-agents pour la conception et la construction

d’un environnement de simulation en vue de l’évaluation des performances des
ateliers multi-sites, Ph.D. Dissertation, École Nationale Supérieure des Mines et
Université Jean Monnet, France.
Galland, S., Grimaud, F., Beaune, P., & Campagne J. (2003). MAMA-S: An
introduction to a methodological approach for the simulation of distributed
industrial systems. International Journal of Production Economics, 85, 11–31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00083-5
Ganga, G.M.D. (2010). Proposta de um modelo de simulação baseado em lógica

fuzzy e no SCOR para predizer o desempenho da empresa-foco em cadeias de
suprimentos, Ph.D. Dissertation, Federal University of Sao Carlos, Brazil.
Gaudreault J., Forget, P., Frayret, J.M., Rousseau, A., & D'Amours, S. (2009).
Distributed operations planning in the lumber supply chain: Models and
coordination. CIRRELT Working Paper CIRRELT-2009-07, http://www.cirrelt.ca –
Accessed December 2009.
Giorgini, P., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J., & Pistore, M. (2003). The Tropos
methodology: An overview. In F. Bergenti, M.P. Gleizes, & F. Zambonelli (Ed.),
Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems. New York: Kluwer
Academic Publishing.
Gjerdrum, J., Shah, N., & Papageorgiou, L.G. (2001). A combined optimization and
agent-based approach to supply chain modelling and performance assessment.
Production Planning and Control, 12, 81-88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537280150204013
Govindu, R., & Chinnam, R. (2010). A software agent-component based framework

for multi-agent supply chain modelling and simulation. International Journal of
- 660 -
Modelling and Simulation, 30(2), 155-171.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2316/Journal.205.2010.2.205-4931
Iglesias, C., González, J., & Velasco, J. (1998). Analysis and design of multiagent
systems using MAS-CommonKADS. In M.P. Singh, A. Rao, & M.J. Wooldridge,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 313-327). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Ivanov, D.A., Kaeschel, J., & Sokolov, B. (2007a). Integrated modelling of agile
enterprise networks. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management,
2(1), 23-49.
Ivanov, D.A. (2009). Structure dynamics control-based framework for adaptive

reconfiguration of collaborative enterprise networks. International Journal of
Manufacturing Technology and Management, 17(1/2), 23-41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMTM.2009.023777
Ivanov, D.A., Sokolov, B., & Kaeschel, J. (2010). A multi-structural framework for
adaptive supply chain planning and operations control with structure dynamics
considerations. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(2), 409-420.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.002
Ivanov, D.A., Arkhipov, A.V., & Sokolov, B.V. (2007b). Intelligent planning and
control of manufacturing supply chains in virtual enterprises. International Journal
of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 11(2), 209-227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMTM.2007.013192
Jankowska, A., Kurbel, K., & Schreber, D. (2007). An architecture for agent-based
mobile supply chain event management. International Journal of Mobile
Communications, 5(3), 243-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2007.012393
Jarras, I., & Chaib-draa, B. (2002). Aperçu sur les systèmes multiagents. CIRANO –
Centre Universitaire de Recherche en Analyse des Organisations. http://www.cirano.qc.ca
- Accessed January 2011.
Jung, H., Chen, F.F., & Jeong, B. (2008). Decentralized supply chain planning
framework for third party logistics partnership. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 55, 348–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.12.017
Karageorgos, A., & Mehandjiev, N. (2004). A design complexity evaluation

framework for agent-based system engineering methodologies. In A. Omicini, A.
Petta, & J. Pitt, (Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Engineering Societies
in the Agents World. Berlin: Springer.
- 661 -
Karam M., Tranvouez, B., Espinasse, B., & Ferrarini, A. (2010). An Organization-
oriented methodological framework for agent-based supply chain simulation.
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Research Challenges in
Information Science, Nice, France.
Kazemi, Z.M., Aït-Kadi, D., & Nourelfath, M.(2010). Robust production planning in a
manufacturing environment with random yield: A case in sawmill production
planning. European Journal of Operational Research, 201(3), 882-891.
Kim, B., & Oh, H. (2005). The impact of decision-making sharing between supplier
and manufacturer on their collaboration performance. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, 10(3), 223-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540510606287
Kim, H.S., & Cho, J.H. (2010). Supply chain formation using agent negotiation.
Decision Support Systems, 49(1), 77-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.01.004
Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O.P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Stephen, L.
(2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic
literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51, 7–15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009
Kleijnen, J. (2005). Supply chain simulation tools and techniques: A survey.

International Journal of Simulation & Process Modelling, 1(1/2).
Kwon, O., Im, G., & Lee, K. (2005). MACE-SCM: An effective supply chain decision
making approach based on multi-agent and case-based reasoning. Proceedings of
the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Hawaii,
USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2005.396
Labarthe, O., Espinasse, B., Ferrarini, A., & Montreuil, B. (2007). Toward a
methodological framework for agent-based modelling and simulation of supply
chain in a mass customization context. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory,
15(2), 113-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2006.09.014
Lau, R., Li, Y., Song, D., & Kwok, R. (2008). Knowledge discovery for adaptive
negotiation agents in e-marketplaces. Decision Support Systems, 45(2), 310-323.
Lee, C., & Liu, A. (2002). A method for agent-based system requirements analysis.
Proceedings of the IEEE Fourth International Symposium on Multimedia Software
Engineering, Newport Beach, USA.
- 662 -
Lee, H., & Billington, C. (1993). Material management in decentralized supply

chains. Operation Research, 41(5), 835-847. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.41.5.835
Lee, J., & Kim, C. (2008). Multi-agent systems applications in manufacturing

systems and supply chain management: a review paper. International Journal of
Production Research, 46(1), 233-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540701441921
Lee, S., & Kumara, S. (2007). Decentralized supply chain coordination through
auction markets: Dynamic lot-sizing in distribution networks. International Journal
of Production Research, 45(20), 4715-4733.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540600844050
Lemieux, S., D'Amours, S., Gaudreault, J., & Frayret, J. (2009). Agent-based
simulation to anticipate impacts of tactical supply chain decision-making in the
lumber industry. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 19(4),
358–391.
Lendermann, P., Gan, B.P., & McGinnis, L.F. (2001). Distributed simulation with
incorporated APS procedures for high-fidelity supply chain optimization.
Proceedings of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference, Arlington, USA.
Lin, F., Kuo, H., & Lin, S. (2008). The enhancement of solving the distributed
constraint satisfaction problem for cooperative supply chains using multi-agent
systems. Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 795-810.
Lin, F., Tan, G., & Shaw, M. (1998). Modeling supply-chain networks by a multi-
agent system. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Hawaii, USA.
Michel, F., Gouaïch, A., & Ferber, J. (2003). Weak interaction and strong interaction
in agent based simulations. In D. Hales, B. Edmonds, E. Norling, & J. Rouchier
(Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Multi-Agent-based Simulation III (pp.
43-56). Berlin: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24613-8_4
Monostori, L., Vancza, J., & Kumara, S.R.T. (2006). Agent-based systems for
manufacturing. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, 55(2), 697-720.
Monteiro, T., Anciaux, D., Espinasse, B., Ferrarini, A., Labarthe, O., Montreuil, B., &
Roy, D. (2008). L'intérêt des agents pour la simulation de la chaîne logistique, In
C. Thierry, A. Thomas, & G. Bel (Ed.), La simulation pour la gestion des chaînes
logistiques. Paris: Lavoisier.
- 663 -
Monteiro, T., Roy, D., & Anciaux, D. (2007). Multi-site coordination using a multi-
agent system. Computers in Industry, 58(4), 367–377.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2006.07.005
Montreuil, B., Frayret, J.M. & D'Amours, S. (2000). A strategic framework for
networked manufacturing. Computers in Industry, 42(2-3), 299-317.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(99)00078-0
Moyaux, T., Chaib-draa, B., & D’Amours, S. (2007). Information sharing as a

coordination mechanism for reducing the bullwhip effect in a supply chain. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part C: Applications and Reviews,
37(3), 396-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2006.887014
Ng, W., & Piplani, R. (2003). Simulation workbench for analysing multi-echelon
supply chains. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 14(5), 449-457.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09576060310477852
Nishioka, Y. (2004). Collaborative agents for production planning and scheduling

(CAPPS): A challenge to develop a new software system architecture for
manufacturing management in Japan. International Journal of Production
Research, 42(17), 3355-3368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540410001695989
Orcun, S., Asmundsson, R., Uzsoy, R., Clement, J., Pekny, J., & Rardin, R. (2007).
Supply chain optimisation and protocol environment (SCOPE) for rapid
prototyping and analysis of complex supply chains. Production Planning and
Control, 18, 388-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537280701417116
Ouhimmou, M., D’Amours, S., Beauregard, R., Aït-Kadi, D., & Chauhand, S. (2008).
Furniture supply chain tactical planning optimization using a time decomposition
approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(3), 952-970.
Padgham, L., & Winikoff, M. (2002). Prometheus: A pragmatic methodology for

engineering intelligent agents. Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent-oriented
Methodologies at OOPSLA 2002, Seattle, USA.
Pan, A., Leung, S.Y.S, Moon, K.L., & Yeung, K.W. (2009). Optimal reorder decision-
making in the agent-based apparel supply chain. Expert Systems with
Applications, 36, 8571–8581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.081
- 664 -
Paolucci, M., Revetria, R., & Tonelli, F. (2008). An Agent-based system for sales
and operations planning in manufacturing supply chains. WSEAS Transactions on
Business and Economics, 3(5), 103-112.
Parunak, H.V.D. (1998). Practical and industrial applications of agent-based

systems. Environmental Research Institute of Michigan (ERIM).
Parunak, H.V.D., Baker, A.D., & Clark, S. (2001). The AARIA agent architecture:
From manufacturing requirements to agent-based system design. Integrated
Computer-Aided Engineering, 8, 45-58.
Parunak, V., & VanderBok, R. (1998). Modeling the extended supply network.
Industrial Technology Institute.
Penker, M., & Wytrzens, K. (2005). Scenarios for the Austrian food chain in 2020
and its landscape impacts. Landscape and urban planning, 71(2-4), 175-189.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.03.002
Pfleeger, S., & Atlee, J. (2006). Software engineering: Theory and practice. New
Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Sadeh, N.M., Hildum, D., Kjenstad, D., & Tseng, A. (1999). MASCOT: An agent-
based architecture for coordinated mixed-initiative supply chain planning and
scheduling. Proceedings of the Agents’ 99 Workshop Agent-based Decision-
Support for Managing the Interned-Enabled Supply-Chain, Seattle, USA.
Samuelson, D. (2005). Agents of change: how agent-based modeling may

transform social science. OR/MS Today, 32(1).
Santa-Eulalia, L.A., Frayret, J.M., & D'Amours, S. (2008). Essay on conceptual

modelling, analysis and illustration of agent-based simulations for distributed
supply chain planning. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research,
46(2), 97-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/infor.46.2.97
Santa-Eulalia, L.A., D’Amours, S., Frayret, J.M., & Azevedo, R.C. (2009a). On
supply chain modelling and simulation techniques: A literature review taxonomy.
Proceedings of the XI SIMPEP Simpósio de Engenharia de Produção, Bauru, Brazil.
Santa-Eulalia, L.A., Aït-Kadi, D., D’Amours, S., Frayret, J.M., & Lemieux, S.
(2009b). Evaluating tactical planning and control policies for a softwood lumber
supply chain through agent-based simulations Proceedings of the IESM’2009
- 665 -
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and System Management,

Montréal, Canada.
Santa-Eulalia, L.A. (2009). Agent-based simulations for advanced supply chain

planning: A methodological framework for requirements analysis and deployment,
Ph.D. Dissertation. Faculté des Sciences et Génie, Université Laval, Canada.
Santa-Eulalia, L.A., D'Amours, S., & Frayret, J.M. (2010). Modelling agent-based
simulations for supply chain planning: the FAMASS methodological framework.
Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Special Session on Collaborative Manufacturing and Supply Chains,
Istanbul, Turkey.
Santa-Eulalia, L.A., Aït-Kadi, D., D’Amours, S., Frayret, J.M., & Lemieux, S. (in
press). Agent-based experimental investigations about the robustness of tactical
planning and control policies in a softwood lumber supply chain. Production
Planning & Control.
Sauter, J.A., Parunak, H.V.D., & Goic, J. (1999). ANTS in the supply chain.
Proceedings of the Agents’ 99 Workshop Agent-based Decision-support for
Managing the Interned-enabled Supply-chain, Seattle, USA.
Shen, W., & Norrie, D.H. (1999). Agent-based systems for intelligent
manufacturing: A state-of-the-art survey. Knowledge and Information Systems,
an International Journal, 1(2), 129-156.
Shen, W., Norrie, D.H., & Barthès, J.P. (2001). Multi-agent systems for concurrent
intelligent design and manufacturing. London: Taylor & Francis.
Shin, H.J. (2007). Collaborative production planning in a supply-chain network with

partial information sharing. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 34, 981–987. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-006-0664-6
Si, Y., Edmond, D., Dumas, M., & Chong, C. (2007). Strategies in supply chain
management for the Trading Agent Competition. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, 6(4), 369-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2006.12.001
Silva, C.A., Sousa, J.M.C, Runker, T.A., & Sá da Costa, J.M.G. (2009). Distributed
supply chain management using ant colony optimization. European Journal of
Operational Research, 199, 349–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.11.021
- 666 -
Stadtler, H. (2005). Supply chain management and advanced planning - basics,

overview and challenges. European Journal of Operational Research, 163, 575-
588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.03.001
Strader, T.J., Lin, F.R., & Shaw, M.J. (1998). Simulation of order fulfilment in
divergent assemble supply chains. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social
Simulation, 1(2), <http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/1/2/5.html>.
Swaminathan, J., Smith, S., & Sadeh, N. (1998). Modeling supply chain dynamics:
A multiagent approach. Decision Sciences, 29(3), 607-632.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb01356.x
Tranvouez, E. (2001). IAD et ordonnancement: Une approache coopérative du

réordonnancement par systèmes multi-agents. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de
Valenciennes et du Hainaut-Cambrésis.
Tranvouez, E., & Ferrarini, A. (2006). MultiAgent Modelling of Cooperative

Disruption Management in Supply Chains. Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Service System and Service Management (ICSSSM'06), Troyes,
France, October 2006.
Tweedale, J. (2007). Innovations in multi-agent systems. Journal of Network and

Computer Applications, 30, 1089-1115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2006.04.005
Ulieru, M., Norrie, D., Kremer, R., & Shen, W. (2000). A multi-resolution
collaborative architecture for web-centric global manufacturing. Information
Sciences, 127, 3-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(00)00026-8
Van Der Vorst, J., Tromp, S., & Van Der Zee, D.J. (2005). A simulation environment
for the redesign of food supply chain networks: Modeling quality controlled
logistics. Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference, Orlando, USA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2005.1574436
Van Der Zee, D.J., & Van Der Vorst, J. (2005). A Modeling framework for supply
chain simulation: Opportunities for improved decision making. Decision Sciences,
36(1), 65-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2005.00066.x
Van Horne, C., & Marier, P. (2005). The Quebec Wood Supply Game: An on-line
tool for knowledge management and transfer. Proceedings of the 59th Forest
Products Society Annual Meeting, Québec City, Canada.
- 667 -
Venkatadri, U., & Kiralp, R. (2007, May). DSOPP: An intelligent platform for
distributed simulation of order promising protocols in supply chain networks.
Proceedings of the 8th IFAC International Workshop on Intelligent Manufacturing
Systems, Alicante, Spain.
Vernadat, F. (1996). Enterprise modelling and integration: Principles and

applications. London: Chapman & Hall.
Wood, M., & Deloach, S.A. (2000). An Overview of the multi-agent systems
engineering methodology. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on
Agent-oriented Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland.
Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N., & Kinny, D. (2000). The Gaia methodology for agent-
oriented analysis and design. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3,
285-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010071910869
Wu, J., Cobzaru, M., Ulieru, M., & Norrie, D. (2000). SC-Web-CS: Supply chain
web-centric systems. Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing, Banff, Canada.
Yain-Whar, S., Edmond, D., Dumas, M., & Chong, C.U. (2007). Strategies in supply
chain management for the Trading Agent Competition. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 6, 369-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2006.12.001
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 2011 (www.jiem.org)
Article's contents are provided on a Attribution-Non Commercial 3.0 Creative commons license. Readers are allowed to
copy, distribute and communicate article's contents, provided the author's and Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management's names are included. It must not be used for commercial purposes. To see the complete license
contents, please visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.
- 668 -

ABSC Literature Review

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ABSC Literature Review

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Santa-Eulalia, Luis Antonio; Halladjian, Georgina; D'Amours, Sophie; Frayret,

Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (JIEM)

Provided in Cooperation with:

Suggested Citation: Santa-Eulalia, Luis Antonio; Halladjian, Georgina; D'Amours, Sophie;

This Version is available at:

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use:

Integrated methodological frameworks for modeling agent-

Luis Antonio Santa-Eulalia1, Georgina Halladjian1, Sophie D’Amours2, Jean-Marc Frayret3

Received January 2011

Purpose: The objective of this paper is to provide a systematic literature review of

Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review is provided to

Findings: Among sixty suitable manuscripts identified in the primary literature

industrial applications. An integrated framework covering all phases of the

Research limitations/implications: The main research limitations are related to

Practical implications: The identification of recent works in the domain and

Originality/value: As there are no recent state-of-the-art reviews in the domain

The Supply Chain Management (SCM) paradigm is widely discussed today in

information sharing, supply chain control structures, intelligent behaviour of supply

In an attempt to model and simulate these problems, many techniques have

simulations: in this area, simulations are normally developed and implemented

This paper is organized as follows. First, Section 2 presents two taxonomies

2 Supply Chain Modelling and Simulation

“Modelling and simulation is the use of models, including emulators, prototypes,

 SC Simulation: represents essentially descriptive modelling techniques, in

system and/or to compare the performance of different systems. Several

 SC Optimization: refers to normative models, i.e. models that suggest how

 Basic Hybrid Approaches: it is interesting to note that in between Simulation

 Artificial Intelligence: descriptive and/or normative models, used to create

In addition, it is important to mention that there are other techniques in the

2.1 Multi-Agent Systems for Supply Chain Planning

Multi-agent systems employ mechanisms from distributed artificial intelligence,

Another interesting advantage of d-APS systems is related to simulation. Agents

2.2 Modelling Frameworks for Agent-Based Advanced Supply Chain

A set of frameworks or methodological approaches can be employed for modelling

Figure 1. Modelling approaches for agent-based advanced supply chain planning

The following categories are proposed:

 Non Agent-oriented Approaches: refers to modelling paradigms that can be

 Agent-oriented Approaches: Conventional methodologies have proven

DeLoach, 2000), Gaia (Wooldridge, Jennings & Kinny, 2000), MAS-

Derived from the Agent-oriented Approaches, a set of techniques appears to

 Agents for Advanced SC Planning: derived from Agent-oriented SCM

2.3 Methodological Aspects of the Modelling Frameworks

One important element of these modelling frameworks refers to the methodological

These methodological aspects include procedures and steps for developing a

Now it is possible to position the present work in relation to the concerned

 Problem formulation: this study consists of a systematic literature review

Q1: How many works related to Agent-based Supply Chain Planning

Q2: What research topics do they address (e.g. planning, scheduling,

Q3: How many papers explicitly employ methodological aspects (see

Q6: What are identified as the main limitations of these studies?

Q7: What are the required research advances in the domain?

professional societies. The databases employed were Academic Search

 Selection and evaluation of the articles: Figure 2 schematizes this process.

 Finalization: information extraction and organization, as well as findings

Figure 2. Papers search process

Diverse approaches from different disciplines exist for evaluating frameworks of

Models: Organization settings: concerns whether organization settings (e.g. agents’

Table 1. Summarizing the Karageorgos and Mehandjiev’s (2004) framework

4.1 Agent-Based Supply Chain Planning

Next, it was identified whether specific implementation toolkits that enable

Another important criterion employed refers to the methodological aspects of the

Authors Andreev et al. (2007)

Individual Agent Organization NI